The Louvain Faculty of Theology and the Modern(ist) Heritage. Reconciling History and Theology

Tilburg University

The Louvain Faculty of Theology and the Modern(ist) Heritage. Reconciling History and

Theology

Schelkens, Karim

Published in:

Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1484/J.RHE.3.218

Publication date:

2009

Document Version

Version created as part of publication process; publisher's layout; not normally made publicly available

Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Schelkens, K. (2009). The Louvain Faculty of Theology and the Modern(ist) Heritage. Reconciling History and

Theology. Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique, 104(3-4), 856-891. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.RHE.3.218

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Take down policy

MODERN(IST) HERITAGE RECONCILING

HISTORY AND THEOLOGY

Introduction

In his 1992 studyon the vota prepared bythe Louvain theological

facultyin view of the Second Vatican Council, Mathijs Lamberigts

has shown that these preconciliar vota deal with a significant variety

of themes.

1

_{In them one finds issues related to questions of}

ecclesio-logical nature, or issues concerning the theologyof revelation,

run-ning from subjects relevant to the domain of fundamental dogmatics

(such as the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, the

inspi-ration of the Scriptures and their infallibility, the analogia fidei

2

_and

the possibilityof natural theology) to subjects more at home in the

domain of exegetical methodology(such as the discussion

surround-ing the sensus litteralis, the place of historical-critical research in

the-ology, the establishment of criteria or norms for the interpretation of

Scripture, the value of the formgeschichtliche research methodology,

the relationship between the Old Testament and the New). As far as

the topic of revelation was concerned, the themes mentioned and

developped in the faculty vota appear to have been elaborated bya

small group of Louvain professors of Biblical exegesis, some of whom

would become quite influential in the upcoming council.

3

_{In the}

present article, we will not focus on the council, rather we wish to

studythe wayin which the Louvain Faculty, and in particular its

exegetes, sought to integrate historical criticism and theologyduring

1 _{Mathijs Lamberigts, The vota antepraeparatoria of the Faculties of Theology} of Louvain and Lovanium (Zaí¨re), in Lamberigts and Claude Soetens (ed.), A` la veille du concile Vatican II. Vota et re´actions en Europe et dans le catholi-cisme oriental (Instrumenta Theologica, 9), Leuven, 1992, p. 169-184.

2 _{Bythe ‘‘analogyof faith'' we mean the necessityfor theologyto remain in} accordance with the catholic faith as it gained form in the Scriptures and the Apostolic Tradition.

the decades before Vatican II. We will concentrate on the wayin

which a generation of exegetes that onlytook the lead after the

mod-ernist crisis was still deeplyinvolved in trying to tackle a problem

rooted in the heart of the modernist crisis, i.e. the reconciliation of

historical-critical methodologywith catholic theology. The main

protagonists of our storywill be Lucien Cerfaux,

4

_{Joseph Coppens,}

5

and Albert Descamps.

6

But the aim of our present studyis twofold. First, it endeavours

to explain and to uncover the relationship between the

aforemen-tioned themes bylocating them within the framework of the

theo-logical and exegetical trends of their time, and pointing to their

roots in the modernist crisis. Second, at various instants we will

show that the issue of an (in)compatibilityof historical and

theo-logical reasoning is not limited to the so-called biblical movement

and its Louvain exponents, such as Cerfaux, Coppens and

Des-camps. Our studywill make clear that preciselythe issue of

recon-ciling historyand theologylinks the development of catholic

exegesis in this era with the developments in dogmatic theology

and church history, installing a reciprocal relationship and

interac-tion between fundamental dogmatics and exegesis. Therefore,

refer-ence will also be made to the wayin which the Louvain faculty

keeps track with other, more dogmaticallyand/or church

histori-callyfocussed movements in the preconciliar era, such as the

so-called nouvelle the´ologie-movement.

7

_{In this juncture, we will briefly}

4 _{Lucien Cerfaux (1883-1968), priest of the diocese of Tournai. Cerfaux} obtains doctorates in Philosophyand Theologyat the Gregorian University, and studies for one year at the Pontifical biblical Institute. From 1930 to 1955 he is professor of Biblical Exegesis at Louvain. In 1941 he is appointed a consultor to the Pontifical Biblical Commission. See Joseph Coppens, La carrie`re et l'œuvre scientifique de Mgr. Cerfaux, in: ETL, 45 (1969), p. 8-44.

5 _{Joseph Coppens (1896-1981), priest of the diocese of Ghent, professor of} Biblical Exegesis at the Louvain Theological Facultyand dean of the Faculty. See Gustave Thils et al., In Memoriam Monseigneur J. Coppens, 1896-1981, in: ETL, 57 (1981), p. 227-340.

6 _{Albert Descamps (1916-1980), priest of the diocese of Tournai. Professor of} New Testament Exegesis at Louvain from 1955 to 1960. He is appointed auxil-iarybishop of Tournai in 1960, and becomes rector of the Louvain Universityin 1962. Joseph Coppens, Son Excellence Mgr. Albert Descamps. In Memoriam, in: ETL, 56 (1980), p. 253-281.

studythe role played byLouvain professors such as Gustave Thils

8

and Roger Aubert.

9

A History of Collision: Method versus Dogma, 1893-1939

The preconciliar debate can hardlybe addressed as a case of

cre-atio ex nihilo. Almost all of the topics to which it refers are

trace-able to a broad debate that continued to rage within the Catholic

Church, a debate with its roots in the modernist crisis at the

begin-ning of the 20

th

_century

10

_{and its continuation in the crisis}

sur-rounding the nouvelle the´ologie and the neo-modernist controversy

of the early1960's.

11

the term ‘‘nouvelle the´ologie'' was not coined bythe French authors (such as Congar, Chenu, and de Lubac) whom it concerns, but rather bytheir opponents, and is even used byPius XII in his discourse held to the Jesuit general congre-gation in Rome in 1946. See « Audientia a summo pontifico », in: ARSJ 11 (1946-1950), 57-58.

8 _{Gustave Thils (1909-2000), priest of the archdiocese of Mechelen. Obtains a} doctorate in 1935 and the Magister's Degree in 1937 (with Rene´ Draguet). After a period as Exegesis professor in Mechelen he becomes professor of Dogmatics at the Higher Institute for Religious Sciences at Louvain. In 1960 he becomes a member of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. See Roger Aubert, La carrie`re the´ologique de Mgr. Thils, in Albert Houssiau (ed.), Voies vers l'unite´: Colloque organise´ a` l'occasion de l'e´me´ritat de Mgr. G. Thils, Louvain-la-Neuve, 27-28 avril 1979 (Cahiers de la Revue the´ologique de Louvain, 3), Louvain-la-Neuve, 1981. 9 _{Roger Aubert (°1914), priest of the archdiocese of Mechelen. Professor of} Church History. From 1952 to 1962 he taught History of Canon Law classes, which explains his occurrence here. See Jean Pirotte, Le sens d'un hommage. Roger Aubert, l'histoire et le me´tier d'historien, in Jean Paul Hendrickx, Jean Pirotte and Luc Courtois (ed.), Le cardinal Mercier (1851-1926): Un pre´lat d'avant-garde. Publications du Professeur Roger Aubert rassemble´es a` l'occasion de ses 80 ans, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1994, p. 14-29.

10 _{Amidst the abundant literature available, we wish to point to some crucial} studies byE´mile Poulat, such as Histoire, dogme et critique dans la crise moder-niste (Bibliothe`que de l'E´volution de l'humanite´, 18), Paris, 19963_{and the} afore-mentioned one by Fouilloux, Une E´glise en queˆte de liberte´. La pense´e catholique française entre modernisme et Vatican II (1914-1962), Paris, 2006; more atten-tion to the Anglo-Saxon side of the modernist problematic is found in Thomas M. Loome, Liberal Catholicism, Reform Catholicism, Modernism: A Contribution to a New Orientation in Modernist Research (Tu¨binger theologische Studien, 14) Mainz, 1979.

Pon-Our review of the said debate begins in 1893 with the

promulga-tion of Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissimus Deus.

12

_{The goal of}

the encyclical was the promotion of biblical studies and the

provi-sion of a response to pressing questions surrounding the value of

historical-critical research methods. At the same time, the

encycli-cal addressed a number of dogmatic questions, including the

inspi-ration of the Scriptures, their divine authorship and their

infallibility.

13

_{The relationship between theologians and the}

magis-terium also constituted a point of discussion. While the

interwoven-ness of all these factors mayseem strange, it remains crucial

nevertheless, since the entire debate on the question of modernism

tended to circle around these clusters. The core question a fortiori

has to do with the (in)compatibilityof the historical-critical (read:

exegetical-scientific) approach to the Bible on the one hand, and

the ‘‘theological'' (read: traditional-dogmatic) interpretation of the

Scriptures on the other.

14

_{The emergence of historical-critical}

research in the course of the 19

th

_century

15

_{obliged the Roman}

Catholic Church to determine its position in the dispute, especially

since it turned around a disagreement that — given the central role

of the Scriptures within theology

16

_{— had consequences for}

theolo-tifical Biblical Institute, in: Bijdragen. International Journal of Philosophy and Theology, 69 (2008), p. 18-51.

12 _{Enchiridion Biblicum: Documenti della Chiesa sulla Sacra Scrittura, ed.} Alfio Filippi and Erminio Lora [Strumenti] (Bologna, 19942_{) (henceforth EB),} § 81-134. More background is found in A.J. Cotter, The Antecedents of the Ency-clical Providentissimus Deus, in: CBQ, 5 (1943), p. 117-124. See also John Hayes (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, Vol. I, p. 324.

13 _{C. Theobald, L'exe´ge`se catholique au moment de la crise moderniste, in} Claude Savart and Jacques-Noe¨l Aletti (ed.) Le monde contemporain et la Bible (Bible de tous les temps, 8), Paris, 1985, p. 387-439, there 389-390.

14 _{It is hardlysurprising that M.J. Lagrange, La me´thode historique, Paris,} 1904, from the first page onward talks about the reconciliation of ‘‘l'exe´ge`se critique et le dogme eccle´siastique''.

15 _{Cf. E. Hocedez, Histoire de la the´ologie au xix}e _{sie`cle, 3 vols. (Museum} Lessianum. Section the´ologique 43-45), Brussels, 1947-1952, Vol. 3, p. 63-93; P.M. McDonald, Biblical Scholarschip: When Tradition Met Method, in John Deedy (ed.), The Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century: Renewing and Re-imaging the City of God, Collegeville MA, 2000, p. 113-130.

gy's very foundations. The Catholic Church's response at the time

was grafted to the principles of neo-scholasticism.

17

_{As Leitprinzip,}

it was presupposed that the Scriptures were (a) inspired bythe

HolySpirit and thus (b) infallible. This was then adjoined to (c)

the doctrine that refers to God as the original author of the

Scrip-tures,

18

_{whereby(d) (in line with the scholastic understanding of}

instrumental causality) the role of the human authors was reduced

to that of technical executors. The concepts of inspiration,

infalli-bilityand the principle of a Deus auctor were thus combined as

panels in a triptych. The Roman Catholic Church — and in

partic-ular the magisterium — had evidentlyunderstood the emergence

the historical-critical method as a threat to its dogmatic certitude

and had decided to strike back.

The interpretation of the doctrine of revelation was central to

the debate and was to playan important role at the Council.

19

At the same time, however, the neo-scholastic understanding of

Scripture and Tradition upheld bythe Roman Catholic Church in

this period was also problematic. Scripture and Tradition were

taken to be theological ‘sources', collections of revealed truth rather

that revelation's modes of transmission. This resulted in a concept

of revelation that can be characterised as propositional (as the

enu-meration of truths in the form of propositions), conceptual

20

_{(as a}

compilation of abstract concepts) and a-historical (as immune to

contingency). While the Scriptures were also seen as a collection

of inviolable truths, an apologetic — often anti-Protestant —

ten-17 _{Neoscholasticism gained a powerful influx byLeo XIII through the 1879} encyclical Aeterni Patris. See Francis Copleston, A History of Philosophy, 11 vols., New York, 1994, vol. 9, p. 250, and Hocedez, Histoire de la the´ologie... [see n. 15], Vol. 3., p. 351sv.

18 _{R.B. Robinson, Roman Catholic Exegesis Since Divino Afflante Spiritu:} Hermeneutical Implications (SBL-Dissertation Series, 111), Atlanta GA, 1982, p. 11.

19 _{See R. Burigana, La Bibbia nel Concilio. La redazione della costituzione} ‘Dei Verbum' del Vaticano II (TRSR. Nuova Serie, 21), Bologna, 1998; H. Sauer, Erfahrung und Glaube. Die Begru¨ndung des pastoralen Prinzips durch die Offenbarungskonstitution des II. Vatikanischen Konzils (Wu¨rzburger Studien zur Fundamentaltheologie, 12), Frankfurt am Main – Berlijn – Bern – New York – Parijs – Wenen, 1993; and our Catholic Revelation Theology on the Eve of the Second Vatican Council (1958-1962) (Brill's Series in Church History), Leiden – Boston, 2009, in print.

dencylead the Church to consider them materiallyinsufficient with

respect to the Tradition. While we will return to the nuances of the

debate in question below, one can observe for the time being that

such a theologyclearlydeduced everything on the basis of

tran-scendence. The consequences for biblical research are evident.

Where exegesis was unable to deal with the contradictions it found

in an infallible corpus of Scripture, it could onlyresort to a

harmo-nising concordism,

21

_{and an exegesis that understood the sensus}

lit-teralis of Scripture as conveying the meaning of the scriptural text as

it was intended byits divine author.

22

_{Providentissimus remained on}

the surface on all these domains, it reconfirmed a few traditional

standpoints and associated itself relativelycloselywith the doctrinal

stipulations of Vatican I and Trent.

23

_{Although Leo XIII reacted to}

a notorious article bythe Parisian Maurice d'Hulst,

24

_{the modernist}

crisis onlycame into its own in the first decade of the 20

th

_century.

Where Leo XIII had continued to speak of rationalism, Pius X

introduced the new term ‘‘modernism'' in the encyclical Pascendi

dominici gregis of 1907

25

_{and in the earlier decree Lamentabili,}

26

which had alreadycondemned no less than 65 propositions as

mod-21 _{Cf. Jean-Noe¨l Aletti, Conclusions, in Savart and Aletti (ed.), Le monde} contemporain, p. 517-522.

22 _{Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, 1, 10: Quia vero sensus} littera-lis est quem auctor intendit, auctor autem Sacrae Scripturae Deus est.

23 _{EB, p. 180, § 124: Etenim libri omnes atque integri, quos Ecclesia} tam-quam sacros et canonicos recipit, cum omnibus suis partibus Spiritu Sancto dic-tante conscripti sunt; tantum vero abest ut divinae inspirationi error ullus subesse possit, ut ea per se ipsa, non modo errorem excludat omnem, sed tam necessario excludat et respuat, quam necessarium est, Deum, summam Verita-tem, nullius omnino erroris auctorem esse.

24 _{As regards the article of Msgr Maurice d'Hulst (1841-1896), then rector at} the Institut Catholique de Paris, see M. d'Hulst, La question biblique, in: Le Correspondant, 134 (1893), p. 201-251. Also see Francesco Beretta, Monsei-gneur d'Hulst et la science chre´tienne: Portrait d'un intellectuel (Textes dossiers documents, 16), Paris, 1996, p. 99-123 (121): Elle [Providentissimus Deus] contient un encouragement ge´ne´reux a` l'e´tude de l'E´criture sainte, et des indica-tions de´veloppe´es a` ce sujet, mais elle re´affirme en meˆme temps avec insistance la ve´rite´ absolue de la Bible et repousse explicitement la notion d'‘inerrance res-treinte' formule´e par Mgr. d'Hulst.

25 _{Pius X, Litterae encyclicae Pascendi de modernistarum doctrinis, in: ASS,} 40 (1907), p. 622-639.

ernist. During the latter's pontificate we can observe a hardening of

positions, giving rise to a series of excommunications and the

inclu-sion of several publications on the Index.

In 1902, Leo XIII established the Pontifical Biblical

Commis-sion,

27

_{which graduallycame to function as the magisterium's}

con-trol apparatus.

28

_{The motu proprio Praestantia Scripturae}

29

followed in 1907 and from 1910 onwards, the magisterium imposed

the anti-modernist oath on all Catholic theologians. A full two

years earlier, Alfred Loisy, one of the crisis' leading figures, had

been condemned. Loisywas onlyone of the protagonists

30

_{who had}

called the Deus auctor into question and thus placed the entire

doc-trinal construction under threat. While the majorityof modernists

did not want to harm the Catholic faith

31

_{, their attempts to}

intro-duce historical-critical thinking into the domain of theologycould

not be interpreted otherwise, at least from the perspective of the

magisterium.

In the midst of this crisis, Belgian theologians appear to have

encountered little opposition. Indeed, modernism was onlyof

lim-ited concern to the Belgian theological establishment, and thanks

to the diplomatic qualities of Cardinal Mercier

32

_{Louvain exegetes}

27 _{On the establishing of the Commission in 1902 and its further history, see} Albert Vanhoye, Passe´ et pre´sent de la Commission biblique, in: Gregorianum, 74 (1993), p. 261-75.

28 _{In 1905 Pius X replaced the then secretaryof the Biblical Commission by} the more traditional-minded Belgian benedictine Laurent Janssens (1855-1925). See Olivier Rousseau, Sa grandeur Mgr. Janssens O.S.B., in: Revue liturgique et monastique, 10 (1925), p. 285-289.

29 _{EB, p. 272-279 (276): tum vero maxime quum modernistarum errores, id} est omnium haereseon collectum.

30 _{On Loisy's (1857-1940) life and work, see Albert Houtin and Fe´lix} Sar-tiaux, Alfred Loisy: Sa vie, son œuvre. Manuscrit annote´ et publie´ avec une bibliographie de Loisyet un index bio-bibliographique par E´mile Poulat, Paris, 1960; Christophe Theobald, Loisy, Alfred, in François Laplanche (ed.), Les sciences religieuses: Le XIXe_{sie`cle. 1800-1914 (Dictionnaire du monde religieux} dans la France contemporaine, 9), Paris, 1996, p. 426-431. Other protagonists would be Joseph Turmel (1859-1943), George Tyrrell (1861-1909), Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855-1938), and Ernesto Buonaiuti (1881-1946). See Rosino Gibel-lini, La teologia del xx secolo (Biblioteca di teologia contemporanea, 69), Bres-cia, 20045_{, p. 166-167.}

31 _{Poulat, Alfred Loisy... [see n. 30], p. 30.}

such as Hoonacker

33

_{and Ladeuze}

34

_{were spared condemnation for}

the most part. We will not, however, studythis in detail, given the

fact that our interest lies in the generation following these

theolo-gians. For now, we will suffice byrefferring to other studies on the

issue. Nevertheless, the Belgian theologians of this period too were

forced to cope with the conflict between traditional pre-critical

reading of the bible and historical thinking. According to Joseph

Coppens — who considered himself one of their successors

35

_—

both men espoused an anti-modernist midwayposition in line,

more or less, with the opinions of M.J. Lagrange.

36

_Outside

Lou-vain's facultyof theology, one of the most striking Belgian

contri-butions to the debate came from Henri Merkelbach.

37

_Between

1910 and 1911, Merkelbach published two articles on the

inspira-Louvain University, and from 1906 to 1926 he is cardinal-archbishop of Mechelen. See D.A. Boileau, Cardinal Mercier. A Memoir, Leuven, 1996.

33 _{Albin Van Hoonacker (1857-1933), priest of the diocese of Bruges. Obtains} a doctorate in theologyat Louvain in 1886 and then specializes in Semitic lan-guages. In 1889 he becomes professor of Old Testament Exegesis, and in 1902 he is appointed among the first group of members of the Biblical Commission. See Karim Schelkens, Albin Van Hoonacker, in: Bio-bibliographisches Kirchen-lexikon, Nordhausen, 2008, vol. 29, cols 1485-1491.

34 _{Paulin Ladeuze (1870-1940), priest of the diocese of Tournai. After his} studies in philosophyat the Seminaryof Bonne-Espe´rance he obtains a docto-rate in theologyat Louvain in 1898. He then becomes professor at Louvain and in 1909 he is elected rector magnificus. Joseph Coppens, Paulin Ladeuze, orien-talist en exegeet. 1870-1940: Een bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van de bijbelweten-schap in het begin van de XXe eeuw (Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamsche Academie. Klasse der Letteren en der Morele en Staat-kundige Wetenschappen, 3/1), Brussels, 1941. On Ladeuze see Luc Courtois, Paulin Ladeuze, in Roger Aubert (ed.) Dictionnaire d'histoire et de ge´ographie eccle´siastiques, fasc. XXVIII, Paris, 2001 and Id., Paulin Ladeuze et l'introduction de la me´thode critique dans l'exe´ge`se a` l'UCL, in Patricia Radelet and Brigitte Van Tiggelen (ed.), Sedes Scientiae: l'e´mergence de la recherche a` l'Universite´ (Re´minisciences, 6), Louvain-la-Neuve, Turnhout, 2003.

35 _{Coppens, Paulin Ladeuze... [se n. 34], p. 30 and 74.}

36 _{Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855-1938), French Dominican friar of the} Tou-louse province in 1879. He studies theologyand oriental linguistics, exegesis and philosophyat Toulouse and Vienna. In 1890 Lagrange founds the E´cole pratique d'e´tudes bibliques in Jerusalem, training several generations of exegetes there. See Bernard Montagnes, Le pe`re Lagrange, 1855-1938: L'exe´ge`se catholique dans la crise moderniste (Histoire), Paris, 1995.

tion of Scripture in which he seriouslyquestioned the idea of

iner-rancywithout dismissing it completely.

38

_{In so doing, he disputed}

the instrumentalist approach maintained bythe Jesuits since

Fran-zelin

39

_{and sought alliance with the position of Lagrange by}

appealing for a modern Thomism.

The discussion waned to a certain extent under Benedict XV

40

_,

onlyto flare up again in the 1920's under his successor Pius XI.

41

The absence of negotiations and a general climate of fear brought

an uneasycalm to the situation,

42

_{but the continued ambivalence}

was far from satisfactory. In exegetical circles, the pioneering work

of Rudolf Bultmann and his formgeschichtliche method quickly

spread. The idea that the image of Christ proclaimed bythe New

Testament did not completelycoincide with the historical Jesus,

but had its roots rather in the faith context of the earlyChristian

communities and the context in which the said image was

trans-mitted

43

_{lead Bultmann to a number of radical conclusions in his}

later work. In his Theologie des neuen Testaments of 1948

44

_{, for}

example, he emerges as the defender of a demythologisation of the

language of the New Testament, in an effort to understand the

Guillelmus Nicolaus Merkelbach, in: Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek, 9, p. 510-514.

38 _{Henri Merkelbach, L'inspiration des divines e´critures, in: Revue} eccle´sias-tique de Lie`ge, 6-7 (1910-1912), p. 221-243 and p. 12-33. Both articles were edit-ed in 1913 as Merkelbach, L'inspiration des divines e´critures: Questions de principe et questions d'application, Arras, 1913.

39 _{Raymond F. Collins, Introduction to the New Testament, London, 1983,} p. 337. On Franzelin's (1816-1886) life and work, see Peter Walter, Johann Baptist Franzelin (1816-1886). Jesuit, Theologe, Kardinal. Ein Lebensbild, Bosen, 1987.

40 _{Fouilloux, Une E´glise... [see n. 10], p. 16-20, talks about a ‘‘de´tente''.} 41 _{The famous Manuel Biblique, which had know several reprints since 1878,} was put on the Index in 1923. One year later, Pius XI's Motu proprio Bibliorum scientiam forces all students in exegesis to obtain their license or doctoral degree with the Pontifical Biblical Commission or at the Biblicum, which explains why professors such as Cerfaux had spent a year of study there. EB, p. 510-515, there 512, § 509.

42 _{A crucial step in that direction is the abolishing of the Sodalitium Pianum} in 1921. See E´mile Poulat, Inte´grisme et catholicisme inte´gral: Un re´seau secret international antimoderniste, la Sapinie`re 1909-1921 (Religion et socie´te´s), Tour-nai, 1969.

43 _{Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, Go¨ttingen,} 1921.

message of the biblical narratives at an existential level and to

come closer to the primitive experience of earlyChristianity. This

existential interpretation was so far removed from the exegetical

methods prescribed bythe Catholic magisterium that Catholic

the-ologians were onlyable to assimilate Bultmann's ideas in silence

and onlylittle bylittle. Another discussion within the Catholic

church demands our attention at this juncture, however. The

ques-tion of the compatibilityof tradiques-tional dogmatics and the

histori-cal-critical method reappeared on the agenda, albeit in a different

form: the so-called nouvelle the´ologie.

45

A studyhouse run bythe French Dominicans had established

itself in the French-Belgian village of Le Saulchoir in 1904.

46

_From

the first years of the 20

th

_{century, the Dominicans of Le Saulchoir}

had developed a via media, which was onlycommitted to writing in

1937

47

_{byMarie-Dominique Chenu.}

48

_{A first and important}

consta-tation for our purposes is that Chenu proved to be deeplyinspired

bythe work of the dominican exegete Lagrange.

49

_{Still, the}

school's point of departure differed from that of the ‘‘modernists''.

45 _{Fouilloux, Une E´glise... [see n. 10]; and Tshibangu, The´ologie... [see} n. 20]. Also see Gibellini, La teologia... [see n. 30], p. 173-225.

46 _{The French dominicans had been forced to leave France, due to} anti-catholic legislation under Prime Minster E´mile Combes in 1904. Antoine Dan-sette, Histoire religieuse de la France contemporaine. Sous la troisie`me re´publique (L'histoire), Paris, 1951, vol. 2, p. 300ff. More recent background information is found in Jean-Pierre Scot, Gene`se de la loi de 1905, in Yves Charles Zarka (ed.) Faut-il re´viser la loi de 1905, Paris, 2005, p. 7-56.

47 _{Much of Chenu's terminologywas owed to the founder of Le Saulchoir,} and his book Ambroise Gardeil, Le donne´ re´ve´le´ et la the´ologie, Paris, 1910. See E´tienne Fouilloux, Le Saulchoir en proce`s (1937-1942), in Giuseppe Alberigo et al. (ed.), Une e´cole de the´ologie. Le Saulchoir (The´ologies), Paris, 1985, p. 37-59, there 42-43.

48 _{Marie-Dominique Chenu (1895-1990), French dominican friar. Professor of} Church Historyand regent of Le Saulchoir from 1920 to 1942. Later also pro-fessor at the Sorbonne and the Institut Catholique de Paris. On Chenu, see Jean Jolivet, M.D. Chenu: Me´die´viste et the´ologien, in: Revue des sciences philosophi-ques et the´ologiphilosophi-ques, 81 (1997), p. 381-94.

Chenu did not base himself on a meticulous historical-critical

dis-section of the Scriptures, but preferred to present his Saulchoir as

a school that aimed to create a synthesis of neo-Thomistic

specula-tion and positive theology. By taking dogmatic theology as his

starting point and byplacing the dogma of the incarnation at the

centre of the theologyof revelation, he hoped to emerge from the

impasse that the theologyof his dayhad hitherto been unable to

escape. A theologythat took the incarnation as its keyalso had to

recognise its profoundlyhistorical roots: le donne´ re´ve´le´ appeared to

be radicallyhistorical. Instead of understanding the incarnation as

an idea or a concept, it was considered an historical event:

50

_God

revealed Godself in a concrete human being, in history. On the one

hand such ideas come veryclose to the modernist discourse. On the

other hand, theytake a different point of departure, beginning at

the opposite end of the continuum, with revelation perceived in

terms of incarnation. This theological premise onlygenerated an

appreciation and legitimation of historical-critical thinking a

poste-riori, something that the modernists maintained from the outset.

51

Roughlya year after Chenu's publication his Belgian confrere

Louis Charlier

52

_{ran into difficulties with his Essai sur le proble`me}

McCool, The Neo-Thomists (Marquette Studies in Philosophy, 3), Milwaukee WI, 1994.

50 _{Tshibangu, The´ologie... [see n. 20], p. 165: Le donne´ re´ve´le´, avons-nous} dit, doit jouir en the´ologie d'une primaute´ totale. [...] Le roˆle premier de la the´o-logie est d'en de´terminer la teneur, quelle que soit la modalite´ sous laquelle il se manifeste. Elle re´alise cette taˆche en e´tudiant ce donne´ dans l'E´criture et la Tradition.

51 _{Alberigo et al. (ed.), Une e´cole de the´ologie... [see n. 47], p. 134-135: Si la} re´ve´lation s'inse`re ainsi dans le temps, au cours d'une histoire, histoire sainte, mais histoire, centre´e sur le fait historique de l'Incarnation, si de`s lors le donne´ re´ve´le´ s'inscrit et se pre´sente dans des faits et des textes historiques, nous voici directement et brutalement devant cette question: la the´ologie, comme la foi qui l'inspire, ne sont-elles pas alors justiciables d'une critique historique? Ce qui, en principe, semble devoir jeter la foi au relativisme, et en conse´quence, engager le travail the´ologique dans un cercle a` l'inte´rieur duquel on ne pourra rejoindre la ‘parole de Dieu'.

the´ologique.

53

_{Charlier's essayfollowed the method proposed by}

Chenu in an endeavour to deal with the relationship between

theol-ogyand the revealed (I),

54

_{the relationship between theologyand}

rationality(II), and the methods of theology(III). Taking Thomas

as his foundation, he developed a positive theologythat was open

to historical-critical thinking. Attempts byGardeil, Chenu and

Charlier to develop a contemporaryneo-Thomism thus support

Brian Shanley's claim that 20

th

_{centuryThomism should not be}

approached as monolithic. While it includes the perspective of Leo

XIII and his successors, it also embraces a considerable amount of

innovation introduced bythe Dominicans themselves.

55

_This

insight becomes all the more painful when one realises that the

works of Chenu and Charlier were placed on the Index in 1942.

56

Louvain's facultyof theologyalso ran into difficulties in the same

year. In the aftermath of Charlier's condemnation, the Holy Office

discovered that his work was based in large part on class notes

taken bya student of Rene´ Draguet.

57

_{The Louvain professor fell}

into discredit from February1942 and saw his license to teach

withdrawn. After consulting the Belgian episcopate, rector van

Waeyenbergh was then forced to ‘‘transfer'' Draguet to the faculty

of arts.

58

53 _{Louis Charlier, Essai sur le proble`me the´ologique (Bibliothe`que} orienta-tions. Section scientifique 1), Thuillies, 1938. An elaborate analysis of this work is found in Ju¨rgen Mettepenningen, L'essai de Louis Charlier (1938): Une contribution a` la nouvelle the´ologie, in: RTL, 39 (2008), p. 211-231.

54 _{As did Chenu Charlier installs revelation (une re´alite´ donne´e) as the} start-ing point of theology. See Charlier, Essai sur le proble`me... [see n. 53], p. 66ff. 55 _{Brian J. Shanley, The Thomist Tradition (Handbook of Contemporary} Philosophyof Religion, 2), Boston, 2002, p. 2-36.

56 _{Jesus Martine´z de Bujanda, Index librorum prohibitorum 1600-1966} (Index des livres interdits, 11), Montre´al, 2002. This was instigated byPietro Parente (1891-1986) who had spread a note asking for a condemnation of these works. See Tshibangu, The´ologie... [see n. 20], p. 80.

57 _{Rene´ Draguet (1896-1980), priest of the diocese of Tournai. He obtains} the doctoral and magisterial title in theologyat Louvain. From 1925 to 1942 he thaught Theologyof the Oriental Churches. After his condemnation in 1942 van Waeyenbergh transfers him to the Arts Faculty at Louvain, and after a partial rehabilitation in 1948 he resumes teaching activities at the theological faculty.

Renewed exegetical perspectives, 1939-1959

When Pius XII assumed control of the Roman Catholic Church

in 1939, his choice of name appeared to underline continuitywith

his predecessor. While the condemnations of 1942 seemed to

con-firm this presupposition, further developments revealed an

alto-gether different pope. On September 30

th

_{1943, Pacelli}

promulgated his first encyclical on the bible and biblical studies,

Divino afflante Spiritu. The reaction of an otherwise sedate figure

such as Andre´-Marie Charue, bishop of Namur, speaks volumes:

Un souffle d'air frais, d'ozone apre`s l'orage! Une belle re´ussite d'une œuvre longue et ardue, qui vous donne un sentiment d'euphorie et de joie recon-naissante, telle est l'encyclique Divino afflante Spiritu que le souverain Pon-tife Pie XII vient de consacrer aux e´tudes bibliques.59

Whysuch a tangible sense of relief? Divino afflante Spiritu

opens with a confirmation of the stipulations of Vatican I and

Providentissimus Deus concerning the infallibilityof the Scriptures.

As a matter of fact, Pius XII

60

_{even devotes a surprising amount}

of attention to the issues surrounding the concept of Deus auctor,

inspiration and infallibility. Yet it is here that a number of new

perspectives are revealed. Where Leo XIII's doctrine of inspiration

firmlyemphasised the role of the divine author, Pius XII shifts to

a clear appreciation of the human author and introduces the notion

of cooperation between the human and the divine. While a

com-plete revision of the traditional standpoint is not evident in Divino

afflante,

61

_{nevertheless the instrumentalist vision of human}

author-ship is further nuanced in the encyclical, based on the realisation

that instrumental causalitycannot reach its final goal — the

com-munication of God's truth to humanity— without the mediation of

the human author whose person and words are linked inseparably.

Human authors are not to be reduced to supportive instruments.

59 _{Pie XII, Encyclique sur les e´tudes bibliques. Pre´face de S.E. Mgr. A.M.} Charue. Introduction et commentaires de L. Cerfaux (Chre´tiente´ nouvelle, 6), Brussels, 1945, p. 7.

60 _{Joseph G. Prior, The Historical Critical Method in Catholic Exegesis (Tesi} Gregoriana. Serie Teologia 50), Rome, 1999, p. 118-120.

Divine authorship, rather, is dependent on human authorship and

is formed therebyand vice versa.

Based on this difference in nuance, the principle of infallibilityis

redefined in terms of the sensus litteralis. The latter is still

under-stood as the meaning intended bythe author, albeit coupled with

the background notion of cooperation between God and the acting,

co-creating human person. From this point onwards the idea of

dual authorship comes to the fore. The consciousness, intention and

historical locatedness of the human authors became relevant

infor-mation in establishing a clear theological understanding of the

Scriptures.

62

_{A positive attitude with respect to the various}

exeget-ical tools also emerges here, although the encyclexeget-ical continues to

insist on the importance of the analogia fidei and fidelityto the

teaching authorityof the Catholic church.

63

_{This insistence is}

linked first and foremost to the desire to salvage exegesis as a

‘‘theological'' discipline. The one-sided interpretation of scriptural

exegesis as a purelyphilological question, however, remains out of

the question. The aforementioned analogyof faith is also a

herme-neutical analogy. According to Divino afflante, Catholic scholarly

and traditional hermeneutics support one another. In this sense, the

encyclical can be said to be an ill-disguised canonisation of

Lagran-ge's search for a balance between historical-critical exegesis and

theology.

64

_{The results of Divino afflante can be summarised as}

fol-lows: exegetes are again permitted to engage in the public

confron-62 _{See EB, § 560: Quapropter catholicus exegeta, ut hodiernis rei biblicae} necessitatibus rite satisfaciat, in exponenda Scriptura Sacra, in eademque ab omni errore immuni ostendenda et comprobanda, eo quoque prudenter subsidio utatur, ut perquirat quid dicendi forma seu litterarum genus, ab hagiographo adhibitum, ad veram et genuinam conferat interpretationem; ac sibi persuadeat hanc officii sui partem sine magno catholicae exegeseos detrimento neglegi non posse. Non raro enim — ut hoc solummodo attingamus — cum Sacros Auctores ab historiae fide aberrasse, aut res minus accurate rettulisse obiurgando nonnulli iactant, nulla alia de re agi comperitur, nisi de suetis illis nativis antiquorum dicendi narrandique modis, qui in mutuo hominum inter se commercio passim adhiberi solebant, ac reapse licito communique more adhibebantur. Iusta igitur mentis aequitas postulat, ut haec, cum in divino eloquio, quod pro hominibus verbis humanis exprimitur, inveniantur, non magis erroris arguantur, quam cum eadem in cotidiano vitae usu habeantur.

63 _{EB, § 551.}

tation of the historical-critical method and dogma, as long as they

remain loyal to the faith of the Church. They are reminded in this

regard that the scholarlyand the ‘religious' reading of the

Scrip-tures are not mutuallyexclusive, rather theysupport and enrich

one another.

The ‘‘Louvain school'' was at the centre of developments during

this period in the historyof Catholic exegesis. Around the time of

Divino afflante, Van Hoonacker's generation made wayfor that of

Joseph Coppens. Lucien Cerfaux succeeded E´douard Tobac

65

_{on his}

premature demise, the latter having been the successor of Paulin

Ladeuze

66

_{. Cerfaux, appointed consulter to the Pontifical Biblical}

Commission in 1941

67

_{, published his magnum opus a year later on}

Pauline ecclesiology— in Unam Sanctam, a series directed byYves

Congar, one of the main protagonists of the nouvelle the´ologie

move-ment.

68

_{Cerfaux' work attracted attention in exegetical circles, in}

part because it demonstrated development in Pauline thought.

69

In line with his predecessors, he was not afraid to employthe

65 _{E´douard Tobac (1877-1930), professor of Exegesis at the Mechelen} semi-naryas of 1906. He obtains the doctoral and magisterial degrees in Theology, and becomes professor of Exegesis at Louvain in 1921. Joseph Coppens, E´loge acade´mique de M. le chanoine E´douard Tobac: Professeur a` la faculte´ de the´ologie, in: Annuaire de l'Universite´ catholique de Louvain, 82 (1930-33), p. lxxviii-xcv.

66 <sub>On this generational shift at Louvain, see Andre´ We´nin, L'exe´ge`se biblique</sub> a` Louvain au cours du 20e<sub>sie`cle, in Jean-Marie Sevrin and Andre´ Haquin (ed.),</sub> La the´ologie entre deux sie`cles: Bilan et Perspectives. Actes du colloque organise´ a` l'occasion du 575e_{anniversaire de l'Universite´ catholique de Louvain (Cahiers de la} Revue the´ologique de Louvain, 34), Louvain-la-Neuve, 2002, p. 37-56.

67 <sub>Coppens, La carrie`re et l'œuvre scientifique... [see n. 4], p. 15, puts</sub> Cer-faux's nomination in March 1941 (though referring to the Oss. Rom. of 1951) whereas Dirk Claes, Theologie in tijden van verandering. De theologische faculteit te Leuven in de twintigste eeuw, 1900-1968 [unpublished doctoral dissertation, KULeuven], 2004, put it in 1942. Both appear to be mistaken. AAS, 33 (1941), 96, reads: Con biglietti della Segretaria di Stato, il Santo Padre Pio XII, felicemente regnante, si e` degnato di nominare: 13 febbraio 1941 — L'Ill.mo e Rev.mo Monsig. Arturo Allgeier, i Revmi Sacerdoti Alberto Clamer e Luciano Cerfaux [...] consultori della Commissione Pontificia per gli Studi Biblici.

68 _{Lucien Cerfaux, La the´ologie de l'E´glise suivant saint Paul (Unam} sanc-tam, 10), Paris, 1942.

scholarly-historiographical instrumentarium he had at his disposal

and to introduce his knowledge of the Paul's Hellenistic world into

his arguments. The studyof language and context were likewise

granted a prominent role. This brings us back to Divino afflante

Spiritu and to the commentaryon the encyclical offered

byCer-faux and Charue.

70

The commentaryin question is worth more detailed examination

because it provides a concise reflection of the Auseinandersetzung

between exegesis and the question of revelation, and because the

same theological tendencies can be read in the votum of Louvain's

theologyfacultyand later in the schema De fontibus. For Cerfaux,

Divino afflante was crystal clear: the Church supports the

applica-tion of the historical-critical method in exegetical research rooted

in the conviction that a more profound understanding of the text

can onlyenrich our understanding of revelation. More succinctly:

the Church recognises the methodological primacyof the sensus

lit-teralis, the ‘‘literal sense'' being understood at this juncture as the

historical sense, which can be retrieved bythe studyof language

and context. Method is thus given priority. On the question of the

doctrine of inspiration, Cerfaux appreciates Pius XII's presentation

of the human author as an instrument, albeit one whose personal

characteristics can be perceived and read in his work. The

encycli-cal thus encourages historiencycli-cal-critiencycli-cal exegesis

71

_{and invites}

exege-tes to employgenre criticism as a legitimate tool.

72

_{For Cerfaux,}

exegetes who applythis method earnestlyhave no reason to object

70 _{Charue had been trained in exegesis at Louvain and appears to have been} one of the candidates for the succession of Tobac. Wladimir Plavsic, Monsei-gneur Charue. E´veˆque de Namur, Ottignies, 1996, p. 9-11.

71 _{Lucien Cerfaux, Commentaire, in Pie XII, Encyclique sur les e´tudes} bibli-ques, p. 95: Le dogme de l'inspiration d'abord. L'e´crivain sacre´, selon la doctrine des Pe`res, reprise par saint Thomas, est l'instrument de l'Esprit-Saint. C'est un instrument ‘vivant et doue´ de raison', agissant et re´agissant de toutes ses facul-te´s; son œuvre portera donc l'empreinte de sa personnalite´. C'est dire que notre connaissance de l'œuvre — donc du sens litte´ral — croíˆtra dans la mesure ou` nous connaíˆtrons mieux l'e´crivain et toute son e´poque. [...] Ici intervient la me´thode des genres litte´raires [...] de´sormais, elle est plus que recommande´e, elle est commande´e.

to the Catholic doctrina infallibilitatis. In the last analysis, it is the

lack of historical knowledge that introduces doubt on the truth

content of certain passages of Scripture. One question remained:

To what extent can one and is one permitted to reduce Catholic

exegesis to philology? Cerfaux speaks at this juncture of a

‘‘mysti-cal counter reaction''

73

_{on the part of the faithful and warns that}

overlyone-sided approaches to the Scriptures should rightlyexpect

to be rebuffed bythe community. The Church, after all, had

com-bined the allegorical and typological sense of Scripture from of old.

In other words, the otherwise legitimate primacyof the sensus

lit-teralis ought not to occasion the neglect of traditional

interpreta-tional frameworks. Scholarlymethods appear to be instruments

74

rather than goals in themselves. Beyond rather than counter to the

primacyof the literal sense, Cerfaux appeals for a ‘‘dogmatic'' or

‘‘theological'' exegesis.

75

_{What he intends bythis is a hermeneutic}

of faith that subscribes to the ecclesial Tradition and demonstrates

that the gulf between a religious and a scholarlyreading of the

Scriptures can be bridged. This respects Pius XII's notion of the

analogyof faith and leads back to a Grundanliegen of the entire

modernist crisis:

76

_{a synthesis of dogma and history. Cerfaux thus}

solves the compatibilityproblem byestablishing a tentative link

between historical-critical exegesis and dogmatic exegesis.

This option was further developed from September 1949

onwards, when Coppens, Cerfaux and the Benedictine monk Jean

Gribomont organised the first Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense. The

subject of the two-daysymposium was the Sensus plenarius

Scrip-73 _{L. Cerfaux, Commentaire... [see n. 71], p. 98: Faut-il nous e´tonner que la} re´action atteigne la the´ologie et se marque, en matie`re biblique, par un me´pris ou du moins une de´fiance vis-a`-vis de l'exe´ge`se scientifique, ‘les maigres mamel-les du sens litte´ral', comme dit Claudel?

74 _{L. Cerfaux, Commentaire... [see n. 71], p. 105: La science, aux mains de} l'exe´ge`te, est un instrument ne´cessaire.

75 <sub>L. Cerfaux, Commentaire... [see n. 71], p. 108: C'est par cette exe´ge`se</sub> ‘the´ologique' ou ‘dogmatique' que nous donnerons satisfaction a` la saine re´action du monde chre´tien.

turae Sacrae.

77

_{According to Neirynck}

78

_{, the immediate occasion of}

the event in question was the publication in 1948 of Coppens' Les

harmonies des deux Testaments. Essai sur les divers sens des E´critures

et sur l'Unite´ de la Re´ve´lation.

79

_{The book's subtitle says enough.}

Although Lagrange had alreadyendeavoured to solve modernism's

compatibilityproblem byfocusing on the question of the

relation-ship between the Old and New Testaments, Joseph Coppens was

the first to devote a wide-ranging studyto the topic.

With greater precision and detail than Cerfaux's commentary,

Coppens focuses on the polysemic character of the Scriptures,

dis-tinguishing three rudimentarylevels of meaning: sensus litteralis,

sensus plenior and other secondarydenotations. While the first

level (sensus litteralis) was alreadyfamiliar, Coppens' analy

sis

argues nevertheless that the literal meaning is not enough to solve

the problem and that this approach onlydemonstrates a minimum

of unitybetween the Old and New Testaments. He then turns his

attention to the sensus plenior. The terminologyemployed here

maynot be new,

80

_{but Coppens was among the first to point out}

77 _{Frans Neirynck, Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense. Journe´es Bibliques de} Louvain. Bijbelse studiedagen te Leuven, 1949-2001 (Studiorum novi testamenti auxilia, 19), Leuven, 2001, p. 9-11. Next to Coppens's, presentations were given byCerfaux and church historian Jean Gribomont (1920-1986). See Jean Gribo-mont, Le lien des deux Testaments, selon la the´ologie de S. Thomas. Notes sur le sens spirituel et implicite des Saintes E´critures, in: ETL, 22 (1946), p. 70-89. On Gribomont see Henri de Sainte-Marie, Dom Gribomont directeur de l'e´dition romaine de la Vulgate, in Me´morial dom Jean Gribomont (1920-1986) (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 27), Rome, 1988, p. 7-10.

78 _{Frans Neirynck, J. Coppens, fondateur des Journe´es bibliques de Louvain.} Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense 1949-1981, in: ETL, 57 (1981), p. 274-292.

79 _{Joseph Coppens, Les harmonies des deux Testaments. Essai sur les divers} sens des E´critures et sur l'unite´ de la Re´ve´lation (CNRT, 6), Tournai, 1949. The book is a joint edition of three aforepublished articles: Joseph Coppens, Les harmonies des deux Testaments: En e´tudiant les divers sens des Saintes E´critures. Premier article, in: NRT, 70 (1948), p. 794-810; Les harmonies des deux Testa-ments, II. Les apports du sens ple´nier, in: NRT, 71 (1949), p. 3-38; Les harmo-nies des deux Testaments, III. Les apports du sens litte´ral. Essai de synthe`se, in: NRT, 71 (1949), p. 477-496.

that sensus plenior theories had contributed to endeavours to bridge

the gulf between traditional and historical-critical hermeneutics

during the modernist crisis.

81

_{His own synthesis continues along}

such lines,

82

_{building on Cerfaux's earlier initiatives.}

83

Coppens then goes on to explore the precise meaning and role of

the sensus plenior.

84

_{After a bibliographical-chronological surveyof}

the use of the expression, he offers his own definition of the ‘fuller

meaning' as ‘‘the meaning of the text that constitutes an

elabora-tion or compleelabora-tion of the literal meaning without

therebyabandon-ing continuityand homogeneitywith the latter''.

85

_{The sensus}

plenior is thus a complementarysignificance, introducing a faith

perspective that does not contradict the historical-critical meaning

of the text. Cerfaux's initial idea is transformed at this juncture

into an expansion of meaning in the theological direction. This

additional assignation of meaning takes place on the basis of the

unityof revelation, which likewise establishes a unitybetween the

Old and New Testaments. Given Coppens' association of the unity

of revelation with the Scriptures' unityof authorship — i.e. the

hypothesis that a single author lay behind the Old and New

Testa-ments — this same unityof revelation brings us close to the

ques-tion of inspiraques-tion.

86

_{The pattern is familiar: Coppens takes the}

di chiarimento terminologico e concettuale, in: Annales Theologici, 9 (1995), p. 2-54.

81 _{Robinson, Roman Catholic Exegesis... [see n. 18], p. 30-31. Joseph} Cop-pens, Pour une meilleure intelligence des Saintes E´critures. Un nouvel essai d'her-me´neutique biblique, in: ETL, 27 (1951), p. 500-508, on p. 508 reads: Nous vivons a` une e´poque ou` la science biblique fleurit. Un des aspects les plus re´con-fortants de ce renouveau me paraíˆt eˆtre la tentative de re´concilier en matie`re d'exe´ge`se les me´thodes et les points de vue a` premie`re vue oppose´s de la philo-logie et de la the´ophilo-logie.

82 _{Raymond E. Brown, The Problems of the Sensus Plenior, in Gustave} Thils et al. (ed.) Exe´ge`se et the´ologie: Les Saintes E´critures et leur interpre´tation the´ologique (BETL, 26), Gembloux, 1968, p. 72-81, there p. 72. The earliest 20th centuryformulation of the theorywas offered byFerna´ndez, Hermeneutica, in Alberto Vaccari (ed.), Institutiones Biblicae scholis accomodatae, vol. 2, p. 381: Deus per hagiographi verba intendat aliquando sensum abundatiorem, plenio-rem, quem ipse hagiographus intellexit et exprimere voluit.

83 _{Next to Cerfaux' commentary, Gribomont, Le lien des deux testaments,} p. 70-89, also was an instigation.

question of methodologyas his point of departure and finds himself

bydegrees in the domain of dogmatics.

Coppens argues that the human author of the Scriptures — the

instrument of God's will — is not always aware of the deeper

meaning of what he alludes to in his writing, although he never

instrumentalises the human author completely.

87

_{He endeavours}

rather to establish a balance, to avoid a conception of inspiration

that onlypays attention to the human author byfocusing on the

divine author — without at the same time getting bogged down in

unilateralism. He insists on the necessityof a theological exegesis

in which the sensus plenior offers new possibilities, bearing in mind

that the debate surrounding the intentio auctoris includes the

inten-tion of the divine and the human author in the hermeneutical

dis-course. A discussion of Coppens' extensive analysis of the intention

and awareness of the scriptural authors would take us beyond the

limits of the present study.

88

_{His importance for us lies rather in}

his support of the sensus plenior theory. Coppens further elaborates

his position in the course of the 1950's.

89

_{In the proceedings of the}

first Colloquium Biblicum, for example, we find an article in which

he pursues the question further,

90

_{summing up the three}

founda-87 _{According to Johan Lust, Msgr. J. Coppens the Old Testament Scholar, in:} ETL, 57 (1981), p. 241-265, there 244, the theoryof the sensus plenior was for-mulated over against the background of a scholastic notion of inspiration, as given in Providentissimus Deus.

88 _{Coppens's analyses of the authors's (self)conscience led him to establish a} threefold distinction within the sensus plenior: a) a perichoretic sensus plenior, b) an historico-typological sensus plenior and c) a profetico-typological sensus plenior. Such distinctions raise questions as to what extent the biblical authors were aware of the divine intention that runs through their own writings. A good introduction in the problematic has been offered byAntoon Schoors, Het weten-schappelijk werk van Monseigneur Coppens, in La carrie`re et l'œuvre... [see n. 4], p. 9-28.

89 _{Coppens, Pour une meilleure intelligence... [see n. 81], p. 500-508; Nouvelles} re´flexions sur les divers sens des Saintes E´critures, in: NRT, 74 (1952), p. 3-20; Vom christlichen Versta¨ndnis des Alten Testaments: Les Harmonies des deux Tes-taments. Supple´ment bibliographique. Bibliographie J. Coppens, Paris, 1952; L'ins-piration et l'inerrance biblique, in: ETL, 33 (1957), p. 5-35; Le proble`me du sens ple´nier, in: ETL, 34 (1958), p. 5-21.

tions of the sensus plenior with greater claritythat in his original

essay:

Rappelons que le sens en question, que nous avons appele´ ple´nier, se de´-gage surtout a` la lumie`re de deux faits: l'unite´ de la Re´ve´lation et son pro-gre`s continu. Ils sont en outre corrobore´s par une troisie`me donne´e: l'inclination de l'E´glise a` re´fe´rer sa doctrine actuelle a` des textes bibliques ou` il est parfois bien difficile de la retrouver a` l'aide de la seule me´thode philologique.91

It should be clear that the quotation does not support the

pre-eminence of the sensus plenior, certainlywhen one is aware that

Coppens is a tireless defender of the primacyof the sensus litteralis

in his other writings. The notion of the continuityof revelation,

however, introduces the Church's doctrine and its interpretation

through time into the exegetical endeavour. Coppens and Cerfaux

92

thus develop a theological exegesis that endorses the analogyof

faith. Both exegetes take the problem of revelation seriouslyin line

with which theyenvisage Catholic exegesis as a theological

disci-pline, capable of relating to Catholic doctrine in a positive way

without therebyshying awayfrom an Auseinandersetzung. At the

same time, theyare determined to take historyseriously. When the

encyclical Humani generis

93

_{was promulgated in 1950, it is hardly}

surprising that neither professor felt himself under attack. Cerfaux

even found support for his own position in the encyclical,

94

_thereby

apostolique, p. 33-44, reflects upon the dealings of apostolic exegesis with the notion of inspiration.

91 <sub>Joseph Coppens, Le proble`me d'un sens biblique ple´nier, in Cerfaux et al.</sub> (ed.), Proble`mes et me´thode... [see n. 90], p. 12-13.

92 _{The parallels between the positions of both exegetes become even more} tangible through looking at their unisone rejection of John HenryNewman's doctrine of the obiter dicta in the Scriptures, which implies a selective doctrine of inerrancy.

93 _{Pius XII, Litt. Enc. Humani generis de nonnulis falsis opinionibus quae} catholicae doctrinae fundamenta subruere minantur, in: AAS, 42 (1950), p. 568-570; 575-578. The encyclical consists of two main parts. The first part of the encyclical the pope appeals to theologians to return to the sources of divine revelation, i.e. the Scriptures and the Tradition. In so doing, Pius XII condemns two ‘false opinions', namelythe argument that the infallible divine significance of the Scriptures is completelymasked bytheir (fallible) human significance, and the idea of symbolic exegesis.

illustrating that Louvain's exegetes considered it a justifiable

rebuke of the excesses

95

_{related to the nouvelle the´ologie.}

Theycon-tinued unperturbed

96

_{and onlymonths before John XXIII}

announced his Council, theyorganised an international exegesis

colloquium in Louvain on the occasion of the world exhibition in

Brussels.

97

_{Their intuitions were confirmed when Cardinal Van}

Roeyopened the colloquium with a message from Pius XII,

des-tined to be his last words on the topic of exegesis, words in perfect

keeping with Divino afflante Spiritu from fifteen years earlier.

98

Albert Descamps, Cerfaux's successor in Louvain, delivered a

paper at a congress around this time that deserves further

investi-gation. While Descamps likewise sought to establish a synthesis

between the historical and the dogmatic, he differed from Coppens

and his analysis of hermeneutical options

99

_{in that he preferred to}

chre´tienne, maintenue intacte dans notre E´glise et de´fendue une fois encore par l'encyclique Humani generis.

95 _{Also see the report on the second Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense by} Joseph Coppens, Journe´es Bibliques de Louvain, in: ETL, 26 (1950), p. 552-554, and his De Jongste Bijbelencycliek, in: Ons geloof, 27 (1945), p. 145-164.

96 _{Nevertheless, Cerfaux himself was struggling with the fact that cardinal} Marchetti-Selvaggiani of the H. Office had requested that Van Roeyof Meche-len retract Cerfaux's contribution to a Festschrift offered to the protestant exe-gete Goguel, request eventuallyto be denied byCardinal Van Roey. See Claes, Theologie in tijden van verandering... [see n. 67].

97 _{The proceedings of the conference have been published byJoseph} Cop-pens, Albert Descamps and E´douard Massaux (ed.), Sacra Pagina: Miscellanea biblica Congressus internationalis catholici de re biblica (BETL, 12-13), Paris, 1959. Between August 25 and 30, 1958 — not long before the council consulta-tions began — themes such as scriptural inspiration and inerrancy, sensus ple-nior and sensus litteralis, the value of the historical critical method and the reconciliation of a theological and a historical reading of the Bible, etc. were all discussed throughlyin Brussels. An overview of the discussion topics is found in the pamphlet Expositio universalis Bruxellensis, Civitas Dei: Congressus interna-tionalis catholicus de re biblica (Analecta Lovaniensia Biblica et Orientalia. Series III, 10), Bruges, 1958.

98 _{Allocution de Son E´minence le Cardinal Van Roey et Message de Sa Saintete´} le Pape Pie XII, in Coppens, Descamps and Massaux (ed.), Sacra Pagina... [see n. 97], vol 1, p. 14-16 (16).

begin with a thorough investigation of the methodological issues at

stake before approaching issues of theology. Descamps dismissed

what he called Henri Irene´e Marrou's historiographical

subjectiv-ism,

100

_{and sung the praises of the historical-critical method as a}

rational means to achieve a degree of objectivityin one's research.

He goes on to insist that the said method deserved a significant

degree of autonomy, grounded in his conviction that God's

inter-ventions in historydid not, as a rule, tend to jettison the rules of

nature or humanity.

101

_{For the historian, therefore, the testimony}

of a hagiographer is primarilya human testimony, ergo: a historical

fact that can be studied. Descamps thus agrees with Coppens and

Cerfaux in their emphasis on the primacyof the sensus litteralis

102

_,

but he goes further bysuggesting that the studyof biblical

theol-ogyas a component of exegesis remains, in principle, an exclusively

historiographical matter. Neither Coppens nor Cerfaux understood

biblical theologyin such far reaching terms, preferring as theydid

to see it as an extension, as secondary...

Descamps thus insisted on the autonomyof scholarlyexegesis.

To this end, he distinguished between ‘judgements of essence' in

the Scriptures (passages that reflect the religious significance

ascribed to the facts bythe hagiographer) and ‘judgements of

exis-tence' (passages that endeavour to render historical facts).

103

_Both

are the object of exegetical research, he argued, and analysis by

religious and atheistic historians alike will produce the same results.

Descamps' contribution clearlygrants a great deal of autonomyto

critical research and at the same time appears to be critical of

Cop-pens' understanding of the sensus plenior as a sort of added

mean-ing.

104

between these two, see James Tunstead Burtchaell, Catholic Theories of Bibli-cal Inspiration Since 1810. A Review and Critique, London, 1969, p. 242-245.

100 _{Henri Ire´ne´e Marrou, De la connaissance historique (Esprit. La condition} humaine), Paris, 1954.

101 _{Albert Descamps, La me´thode en the´ologie biblique, in Coppens, Descamps} and Massaux (ed.), Sacra Pagina... [see n. 97], vol. 1, p. 132-157, see p. 139-40: l'autonomie de l'approche expe´rimentale des faits religieux.

102 _{Cf. Coppens, Son Excellence Mgr. Descamps... [see n. 6], p. 260-261.} 103 _{On judgements quoad essentiam et quoad existentiam, Descamps, La} me´thode en the´ologie biblique... [see n. 101], p. 141.

Nevertheless, Descamps was also interested in the ‘religious'

sig-nificance of the Scriptures. In an attempt to deal with the issue, he

insisted that the faith did not contradict the results of scholarly

research nor did it add to them. The religious and the scholarly

reading had no point of contact with one another for the simple

reason that theydid not share the same formal object. Descamps

thus implied that the religious reader is interested in the meaning

of the text for today, the ‘living' meaning of the text, whereas the

historian/exegete is in search of the historical meaning, in relation

to both the factual narrative and the theologyof the hagiographer.

Both belong to the domain of the historical meaning. Questions

such as: what did the author want to say? what style features did

he use? to whom did he address his words? are historical questions

and not questions of faith. The interests of the exegete and those of

the believer have nothing in common nor do theycontradict one

another, but theyremain structurallyassociated on account of

their common material object: the scriptural text itself. There is

no opposition, no com-position, but a juxtaposition of both. For

Descamps, the theological meaning of the Scriptures had to be

sought time and again on the basis of contemporaryexperience.

As such, it did not require the purelyhistorical-exegetical labour

essential to the search for the historical meaning. Once again,

Des-camps differs in this regard from Coppens, whose sensus plenior

functioned in terms of content as a surplus to the literal sense.

son assistance et de sa graˆce a` la pre´sence de toutes les qualite´s

humaines, puisque Dieu, non seulement ‘respecte' notre liberte´, mais

peut ‘s'accomoder' aussi de nos de´ficiences''.

105

The supernatural is thus partlydetermined bythe human as the

onlyform of expression. This implies that it is necessaryto grasp

the human content of the Scriptures in all its nuances in order to

be able grasp its divine scope. There is thus a need for both the

historiographical studyof the Scriptures and the religious reading

thereof.

While the solution to the compatibilityproblem continued to be

an issue of concern in post-war Belgium, this concern was, again,

not confined to Louvain's facultyof theology. Two additional

theo-logical centres of studydeserve specific mention in this regard: La

Sarte and Egenhoven. The Dominicans of La Sarte

106

_included

Charlier among their ranks, a figure we associated with the

histor-ical-dogmatic orientation of the nouvelle the´ologie. For the moment,

however, we remain attentive to exegetical circles, in the first

instance the Jesuit scholasticate in Egenhoven

107

_{near Louvain. In}

addition to historical-critical questions, Egenhoven professor Jean

Levie

108

_{was interested in the so-called quaestiones introductoriae}

and in the theological meaning of the Scriptures.

109

_{In line with his}

Louvain associates Coppens and Cerfaux,

110

_{Jesuit Levie was also}

in search of a synthesis. His approach is clearly delineated in his

105 _{Descamps, La me´thode en the´ologie biblique... [see n. 101], p. 151.} 106 _{Beaudouin Groessens and Thierry Scaillet, La pense´e the´ologique, in} Pirotte and Ze´lis (ed.), Pour une histoire... [see n. 72], p. 65-67.

107 _{Christophe Dumont, L'enseignement the´ologique au Colle`ge je´suite de} Lou-vain. Louvain 1838 — Bruxelles 1988, in: NRT, 111 (1989), p. 556-576.

108 _{Jean Levie (1885-1966), Belgian Jesuit. Obtains a doctorate in Classic} Philologyat Louvain. After studies in Brussels, Louvain and Paris he becomes professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Jesuit Scholasticate of Louvain in 1921. See Charles Matagne, Le re´ve´rend pe`re Jean Levie s.j., directeur de la Nou-velle revue the´ologique (1926-1951), in: NRT, 88 (1966), p. 897-906, and Guido Meessen, Jean Levie, in Charles E. O'Neill and Juan M. Domí´nguez (ed.), Diccionario hí´storico de la Compan˜ia de Jesu´s: Biogra´fico-tema´tico, Rome, 2001, vol. 3, cols. 2343-2344.

1958 book La Bible: Parole humaine et message de Dieu,

111

_{which is}

divided into two parts. In the first part, Levie presents a broad

historical surveyof Catholic exegesis and theologydating back to

1850, showing ample evidence of the compatibilityproblem. In the

second part of his book he develops his own position in the debate

on inspiration and endeavours to grasp the specificityof Catholic

theological exegesis. Levie's thoughts and ideas are close in many

ways to those of his university colleagues. He supports Coppens'

studyof the sensus plenior,

112

_{for example, as a solution to the}

problem of establishing a coherent theological interpretation of the

Old and the New Testaments.

Levie's point of departure is the conviction that the exegete's

task is twofold: the studyof the Scriptures as God's word and as

the word of human persons. Both perspectives are intertwined,

leaving Levie to conclude that the authorship of the Scriptures is

likewise a question of cooperation. Word of the creator is word of

the created and vice versa. The exegete is this obliged to engage in

careful historiographical analyses on the one hand, while being

bound to the ecclesial reading of the Scriptures on the other.

Eccle-sial Tradition, after all, is the onlysuitable instance that can offer

the necessarybackground for a correct theological understanding of

the doctrine of the Scriptures.

113

_{This ecclesial dimension is a}

char-acteristic feature of Levie's exegesis and doctrine of inspiration,

114

as is evident from his contribution to the 1958 Congress.

115

111 _{Jean Levie, La Bible: Parole humaine et message de Dieu (Museum} Les-sianum. Section Biblique, 1), Paris, 1958.

112 _{Levie, La Bible... [see n. 111], p. 300-302, where he} carefullydistin-guishes philological and theological exegesis.

113 _{Joseph Coppens, In Memoriam J. Levie s.j., in: ETL, 42 (1966), p.} 681-682.

114 _{See Levie, La Bible... [see n. 111], p. 336: L'E´criture sainte, qui doit} accompagner l'humanite´ a` travers les sie`cles, ne se suffit pas a` elle-meˆme; elle ne peut se comprendre selon Dieu que si elle est sans cesse interpre´te´e dans l'E´glise.